I research, write about innovation, privacy and reputation via my books and articles, and work on it with clients as president of Arcadia, a communications research, design & delivery lab focused on today's most important, cutting-edge issues. I have 30+ years of professional experience working at big ad/PR agencies and at major brands, and I'm a Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History.

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

The Real Reason Bezos Bought The Washington Post Is Because He Wanted To

As people riff about technology, politics, and other ulterior motives why Jeff Bezos just bought the Washington Post, I have an alternate viewpoint: Maybe he just wanted to. If I’m right, he’s a great model for how you might deliver your branding.

Bezos is America’s 12th richest guy, according to this magazine, with an estimated net worth somewhere north of $25 billion. He doesn’t buy tropical islands or outfit his own 767 (as far as we know). In fact, he’s a thrifty guy who earns high approval ratings from his employees at Amazon, even if many find working for him tough. He’s also fairly private about his life and politics, though voicing support for gay marriage (he and his wife have given money) and supporting an Internet sales tax, which might be a smart position for Amazon.

He also invests in a variety of companies, from the usual grab bag of unpronounceable tech startups, to some really cool, odd things, like a clock that will ding annually for the next 10,000 years, and a spaceship that’ll compete to win NASA contracts.

So what if he bought the Post because he wanted to?

Even though today’s Social Dialectic portrays human souls in terms of bias and intent, and fits everything into some clickworthy binary battle narrative, maybe Bezos simply have found the Post an interesting or worthwhile thing in which to be involved. After all, when you’re a zillionarie, you get to do pretty much anything you could imagine, let alone want. His track record of actions barely suggests some secret motive other than having intriguing and varied interests, including media (duh). The letter he wrote to the paper’s employees all but said as much.

Maybe we shouldn’t overthink it…or overthink our brands, either.

Imagine if your company did things because its leadership and employees truly believed in them? I’m not talking about glorious mission statements, governance policies that declare love for everything good and pretty in the world, or marketing campaigns constructed to tickle consumers’ fancy. I’m thinking real stuff…building products, offering services, and taking sides on public issues if and when the company’s rank-and-file employees really cared about them (or at least tolerated management’s convictions). And doing so even if there’s no good money-making reason for it.

That’s what Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy did last year when he made comments about his stance against gay marriage. Not only did he get beat up for it, but he can’t keep quiet, commenting again this June. The company’s Christian ethics have never been a secret (the restaurants aren’t open on Sundays), but there’s no good business reason for it. It’s just authentically who he is, and how he chooses to run the company.

Conversely, think of the marketing campaigns intended to sway consumer opinion while wrapped in the pretense of morality or social good. There’s nothing authentic about celebrating moms, real beauty, or any other invention of corporate communications departments. They’re intended to sell stuff, yet consumers are supposed to doublethink their way past this not-so-secret motive, even when operational reality regularly reminds them otherwise (e.g. oil rigs blow up, cosmetics don’t defy the inexorable march of Time, beer doesn’t make you more attractive to the opposite sex).

I strongly believe that our theology about the definitions and purposes of branding have trained consumers to distrust and doubt what we tell them (politicians haven’t helped, either). We pursue multiple agendas that often conflict when examined in the light of day, so there has to be a secret explanation for consumers to find, if not at least suspect.

Or not.

Bezos may simply have done what he wanted to do, which would be a believable and consistent way to run a business and a life. There’s a lesson here for your branding.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Well, seriously in the media world it is not enough. In an industry gushing red and devolving in a rapid and haphazard fashion, buying the Post for $250 million just for fun would seem incredibly risky and more than a little frivolous. I hope that Mr. Bezos has a plan.

Now John Henry buying the Boston Globe capriciously could be a little more sane. He spent “only” $70 million and he might realize value for its annual losses from the benefits of controlling PR and editorial coverage of his sports team assets (the Globe helpfully has long integrated reporting with editorial content).

I agree with you, though Steve Jobs spent $200 million on a yacht ‘just for fun.’ Bezos may well have a plan. My point is that we may never know it, or understand it fully, and that all the guesstimates about it are nothing more than conjecture. His “brand” is that he did something because he wanted to, and companies could benefit from doing the same.